If students testing at the X percentile on a standardized Algebra test at the end of Algebra I end up at the end of Geometry testing at 1.1X in one teacher's class and at 0.9X in another teacher's class in the next classroom, it seems we have a pretty good hint which teacher is better.
I strongly disagree. Students can understand different subjects better than others. They can become different (better or worse) students from one year to another, for instance, because of home(less) and family situation, have friends in this class but not that class, or like the hot teacher but don't like the old, ugly hippy.
Sure, there are some subject areas that don't lend themselves to standardized testing (for example, various performing arts), but these don't seem to be the areas that are resulting in American High School graduates being non-competitive.
So what you're saying is, those subjects in which there aren't standardized tests are areas where we are competetive. Hmm... sounds like you made the opposite argument here. Feeling and intuition are just as important in "rigorous" fields such as math as in liberal arts. Can you point me to a computer that can solve all our number theory or mathematical logic problems?
... end up being frustrated by not being rewarded for their performance...
I agree. However, using standardized tests is most commonly seen as a method for punishing poor performance, so why would they be supportive of that?
Did you even read the article?
The reason everyone isn't doing it is because it isn't economic. The point of the work was to make it economical. There hasn't been any work, until now, on _small_ scale waste management that _directly_ produces electricity. Before, the inventions required the business to perform some technical/dangerous/expensive task, mainly storing the gas, or installing a permanent structure.
AFAICT, they are using the same process as everyone else. Ergo, they should have the same results as everyone else. No, not ergo, because the "results" are not based only on the fuel production process. What they were measuring was the ratio between diesel fuel consumed and electricity produced. They are probably using a highly efficient, highly modified engine, as well as other more advanced parts.
The guys at Purdue didn't mention how nasty the waste product from their process might be. From the article:
The machine produces a very small amount of its own waste, Warner said, mostly in the form of ash that the Environmental Protection Agency has designated as "benign," or non-hazardous. Back to the Anonymous Coward:
I don't expect to see one of these behind my local restaurant any time soon. True, but I don't expect you would even look.
All I saw in the article is that NASA won't be funding any of its own research. To me, that just means there will be room open on the ISS for educational institutions to put experiments into microgravity. Heck, NASA could even license their "research space" to commercial entities. I see a lot of people assuming that because the government won't be spending money on research that it won't happen. I think it will continue to happen, and NASA might even make some money out of it.
if you double the efficiency, the cost of the cell will go up. You can't assume that these new 50% efficiency cells will be the same price as the old ones...
Slashdot Mirror
If students testing at the X percentile on a standardized Algebra test at the end of Algebra I end up at the end of Geometry testing at 1.1X in one teacher's class and at 0.9X in another teacher's class in the next classroom, it seems we have a pretty good hint which teacher is better.
I strongly disagree. Students can understand different subjects better than others. They can become different (better or worse) students from one year to another, for instance, because of home(less) and family situation, have friends in this class but not that class, or like the hot teacher but don't like the old, ugly hippy.
Sure, there are some subject areas that don't lend themselves to standardized testing (for example, various performing arts), but these don't seem to be the areas that are resulting in American High School graduates being non-competitive.
So what you're saying is, those subjects in which there aren't standardized tests are areas where we are competetive. Hmm... sounds like you made the opposite argument here. Feeling and intuition are just as important in "rigorous" fields such as math as in liberal arts. Can you point me to a computer that can solve all our number theory or mathematical logic problems?
... end up being frustrated by not being rewarded for their performance...
I agree. However, using standardized tests is most commonly seen as a method for punishing poor performance, so why would they be supportive of that?
Your math is a bit wrong, given the context.
Since a = b
then (a-b)=0
so when you divide the (a-b) out:
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
a+b = b*nullity
since a = b
b+b = b*nullity
2b = b*nullity
nullity = 2
So obviously nullity is a real number and equal to 2. Therefore, $200 is really just $100*nullity
All I saw in the article is that NASA won't be funding any of its own research. To me, that just means there will be room open on the ISS for educational institutions to put experiments into microgravity. Heck, NASA could even license their "research space" to commercial entities. I see a lot of people assuming that because the government won't be spending money on research that it won't happen. I think it will continue to happen, and NASA might even make some money out of it.
if you double the efficiency, the cost of the cell will go up. You can't assume that these new 50% efficiency cells will be the same price as the old ones...